Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Poor farcry doom3 numbers with 6800GT

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • FPS
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 31, 2004 2:17:52 AM

My system specs:
athlon 64 3000 (stock)
evga 6800GT (stock)
asus K8N-E deluxe nforce 3 250gb mobo
1 gig XMS corsair memory
120GB WD HD
Lite-on DVD/CD RW
sound blaster audigy 2 zs
antec SLK3700 350w
Windows XP SP2, directx 9.0c, Nvidia 61.77 forceware drivers
AGP aperature 256
fast writes off
aa/af and vysnc set to application controlled image setting at quality
60c idle 70-75c load

Farcry version 1.2 (max settings no aa/af) running fort demo using bench em all program
1600x1200 (vysnc on)38 fps
1280x1024(vysnc on) 49 fps

Doom 3 version 1.0 (high setting no aa/af) running timedemo demo1
1600x1200(vsync off) 44 fps
1600x1200(vsync on) 32 fps
1280x1024(vsync off) 51 fps
1280x1024(vsync on) 43 fps

Im not happy at all with those numbers compared to computers with the same specs as mine, its running about 30-50% less then some benchmarks ive seen on the internet. I did switch video boards during the build process, i went from a 9800 pro to the 6800GT and when i got the computer i still had an ATI directory on the hard drive which is not good. I ran driver cleaner and cleaned out the ATI stuff but i still get the same crappy fps numbers. Im not sure what to do at this point any help would be greatly appreciated. My last resort is a format of the hard drive and a clean install of the OS, problem is i have no floppy drive and i cant seem to find a bootable cd that actually works.

More about : poor farcry doom3 numbers 6800gt

September 2, 2004 7:42:53 AM

OK, first of all, did you benchmark with "timedemo demo1" or "timedemo demo1 1"? adding the extra 1 precaches and will improve your framerate. Always benchmark w/the precache.

Second of all, do you have the newest reference drivers from NVIDIA's website? If you don't, thats a problem, you need to get them. It will improve performance.

If it is neither of the above, know that your numbers aren't THAT far off. Most sites benchmark on the 3200 or intel 3.2 and get about 47fps for Doom 3 @ 1280x1024(vsync off - BTW, always most sites always benchmark w/vsync off unless otherwise stated), but with 4xFSAA. Well, you get 4fps more with a slower processor but no FSAA... which is a bit low but not terrible. Just remember movies in the theatre play at 24fps, so you've got plenty of headroom...

Hope this helps.

Dan


P4c 3.2Ghz @ 800MHz Northwood / ABIT AI7 / 1GB Corsair XMS-Pro CL2 Pc3200 / 160GB Seagate SATA 7200rpm 8mb cache / BFG-Tech Nvidia GeForce 6800GT 256mb / Antec Sonata case w/Antec TruePower 380W PSU
September 2, 2004 12:39:24 PM

Why do you always use that perspective? I don't think movies are like games. Games look horrible at 24fps. Movies look a lot better.

<font color=blue>AthlonXP-M 2500+(12x200)</font color=blue><font color=green>Abit NF7-S</font color=green><font color=red>Kingston DDR400 2x256Mb</font color=red><font color=orange>NEC Accucync 19" CRT</font color=orange><font color=black>Sapphire 9600XT</font color=black>
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
September 2, 2004 1:04:17 PM

Exactly.

He has no idea what he's talking about. Film FPS and video game FPS are very different.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: 
September 2, 2004 2:07:12 PM

Doom3 runs like a train on my older FX5900 Ultra (55fps). I picked the High Setting with the FSAA thing at highest (sorry don´t know that much about the entire FSAA thing).

Might be background software? Had the same thing with farcry when I left my firewall and antivirus on...

Is it a bad thing if there is smoke coming out of my case?
September 2, 2004 2:43:24 PM

firewall and antivirus...i'd keep them on always. Nothing to do with doom 3 gameplay.

reduce the AA, and you'll see FPS go up.

<i> :evil:  <font color=blue>Futile is resistance,</font color=blue><font color=red> assimilate you we will.</font color=red> :evil:  </i>
<b>Hard work has a future payoff. Laziness pays off now.</b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by priyajeet on 09/02/04 09:44 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
September 2, 2004 7:29:32 PM

"Why do you always use that perspective?" - lol... I've never posted that before, you must have me mixed up w/someone else.

So... *personally* I think games look fine at 24fps-30fps, you only need that many frames to create smooth motion, it doesn't have anything to do with whether its a movie or TV, thats the # of pictures/frames it takes to give still images the illussion of moving. I played Far Cry on my old comp at 20-22fps and it never bothered me. Once you get around 18ish it starts to lag and thats when I notice it... PERSONALLY. I think the reason you would say games look horrible @ 24fps is because if thats your average framerate you're likely to dip a bit lower when the load gets heavy. But then again I'm not you, so I don't know.


P4c 3.2Ghz @ 800MHz Northwood / ABIT AI7 / 1GB Corsair XMS-Pro CL2 Pc3200 / 160GB Seagate SATA 7200rpm 8mb cache / BFG-Tech Nvidia GeForce 6800GT 256mb / Antec Sonata case w/Antec TruePower 380W PSU
September 2, 2004 8:13:42 PM

i think that was directed to a more general population, of which u r a subset.

<i> :evil:  <font color=blue>Futile is resistance,</font color=blue><font color=red> assimilate you we will.</font color=red> :evil:  </i>
<b>Hard work has a future payoff. Laziness pays off now.</b>
September 2, 2004 8:28:46 PM

hehe alright. We'll just all agree we want the highest FPS possible :) 


P4c 3.2Ghz @ 800MHz Northwood / ABIT AI7 / 1GB Corsair XMS-Pro CL2 Pc3200 / 160GB Seagate SATA 7200rpm 8mb cache / BFG-Tech Nvidia GeForce 6800GT 256mb / Antec Sonata case w/Antec TruePower 380W PSU
September 3, 2004 4:31:39 PM

Most games 'feel' horrible at lower FPS. The major difference between a game and the TV/Film is that you're supplying input, which is getting translated into movement on the screen. even 30FPS can give a noticeable lag between inputs and on-screen stuff, in some games.

It does depend on the game - Doom 3 is a notable exception - but most games suffer from this to some extent (in my experience). HALO was awful for this.

---
Epox 8RDA+ V1.1 w/ Custom NB HS
XP1700+ @200x10 (~2Ghz), 1.4 Vcore
2x256Mb Corsair PC3200LL/1x512Mb Corsair XMS PC4000 2.5-3-3-7
Sapphire 9800Pro (VGA Silencer Rev3) @418/742
September 3, 2004 4:46:21 PM

HALO was really bad in terms of XBOX -> PC change. It was the worst FPS (frames per sec NOT first person shooter)game ever. I think even the damn company (M$) and not so damn comapany (gearbox) recommended not to use certain settings..i think it was AA.

<i> :evil:  <font color=blue>Futile is resistance,</font color=blue><font color=red> assimilate you we will.</font color=red> :evil:  </i>
<b>Hard work has a future payoff. Laziness pays off now.</b>
September 3, 2004 5:02:03 PM

The reason that movies can look good at 24fps is because film cameras pick up MOTION BLUR.
This tricks the eye into thinking there is more smooth motion than their actually is.

24fps in a video game has no motion blur except in rare games that have this feature, and even then video game motion blur isn't really comperable to film motion blur.

It's generally accepted that video games need at LEAST 30fps for decent play... and most people prefer 60fps average with a 30fps minnimum for good play.

Yes, you can see the difference between 30fps and 60fps in a moving video game scene very easily.

Anything over 70fps is very difficult to percieve, however.
FPS junkies who swear that 150 fps is better than 120fps, and don't realize that their monitor is capping out at 85hz, are retards.

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9700 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 329/337)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>~2750+</b></font color=red> <i>(2400+ @ 2208 Mhz)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>4,876</b>
September 3, 2004 6:22:17 PM

<A HREF="http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.ht..." target="_new">This</A> is more related to fps.

<A HREF="http://www.100fps.com/" target="_new">This</A> is a good site talking abt other stuff if anybody is interested. see the notes at the bottom of that page. That link has some nice picks...NICE ones...

<i> :evil:  <font color=blue>Futile is resistance,</font color=blue><font color=red> assimilate you we will.</font color=red> :evil:  </i>
<b>Hard work has a future payoff. Laziness pays off now.</b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by priyajeet on 09/03/04 03:38 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
September 3, 2004 7:04:07 PM

30 fps is [-peep-]...60fps is MUCH better

IMHO 60fps is where it look 100% fluid.

An egg is realy only just liquid chicken.
a b U Graphics card
September 3, 2004 7:16:03 PM

Nice links, but why did you post the fields per second one?

In no way does fields-per-second matter to this discussion, as PC and film are complete fields and frames, not interlaced. Computers are progressive so there is not interlacing issues. Only on TVs will you get that, and XBOX games don't count around here. :tongue: And then you start getting into other TV issues that don't translate to the other two.

The second link has a big mistake, <i>"Some eye cells are reacting only when a stimulus is moving. Some react..."</i> No that's false. The cones and rods just fire period, the reaction to motion and such is perceived by the visual cortex, certain parts are specifically geared to be excited by motion, and even by the angle of lines. The author may think it's the same but it's not. And the angular aspect is pretty important.

The mention of the side of the eyes doesn't get it either, the side isn't the issue, there are mainly cones in the centre and mainly rods surrounding them the rods are ALWAYS more light sensitive, and it's their porximity that makes them send more info, as he properly described before. Also moving your eye has the image scroll across the rods, and thus acts like it's own stroboscope/filter and therefore makes flickering more easy to detect. Try moving your fingers rapidly in front of your face while watching a projected movie or even look at some LCDs, you will see the same effect without moving.

Cleeve's got it right (no surprise there) with what he says, and we have discussed this a few times so he doesn't repeat too much the deatils each time, and really even the 'fake' motion blur in even the best games, doesn't match-up to film. I saw it caculated in a paper somewhere once, and the equivalent effect would require some ridiculous AA level as well as some rididulous calculation rate (like precalculating about 5-10 frames per rendered frame (thus a final output of 30 FPS would require the a huge level becuase each subsequent frame would have the calculations added on top of it, and remember this is with agood level of AA. This is what is required to calculate an 'equivalent. So it'd be something like 200-500 FPS with at least 8XAA (think their number was mid-high double digits), yeah even the X800XT and GF6800U OC'd to the T1T$ couldn't do that now. Then add that to the resolutions, and you have a daunting task to get anything near parity.

Anywhoo, thanks for the links.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: 
September 3, 2004 8:30:29 PM

my bad, do u mean the 1st link ?

actually that dude keeps chaning his home page. last time i chked it was the 2nd link i posted. this time i chked it was longer but i thought he must have added stuff, so i posted that. but later realized it was a mistake. I have corrected it now.
<i> :evil:  <font color=blue>Futile is resistance,</font color=blue><font color=red> assimilate you we will.</font color=red> :evil:  </i>
<b>Hard work has a future payoff. Laziness pays off now.</b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by priyajeet on 09/03/04 03:37 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
a b U Graphics card
September 3, 2004 9:03:11 PM

Yeah it was actually the first one before and now it's the second. The one that talks about interlaced fields isn't really relevant, just because it's all progressive on PC and entire frames in film, so there is no de-interlancing transfer errors (this is also about moving movies to video for the most part; which is also a very complex process).

Anywhoo, still nice site, just needs some brush ups. Concepts are sound, just some of the details are a little messed-up slightly.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: 
September 4, 2004 9:17:22 AM

cool, thats good stuff to know. That makes sense.

What do you think about 49fps in Doom 3? It seems to look pretty good to me. Do you guys run it at higher settings at get fps in this range, or turn it down to stay around 60?


P4c 3.2Ghz @ 800MHz Northwood / ABIT AI7 / 1GB Corsair XMS-Pro CL2 Pc3200 / 160GB Seagate SATA 7200rpm 8mb cache / BFG-Tech Nvidia GeForce 6800GT 256mb / Antec Sonata case w/Antec TruePower 380W PSU
!